« New Inventor Resources | Main | Happy Birthday Leo! »

April 14, 2005

Method Patents - One Size Fit All Solution?

In his Wall Street & Technology article, Patent Litigation: Legalized Blood Sport, Larry Tabb claims that method patents were developed to protect the human genome coding effort, and should be very limited. He's particularly perturbed by the trading technology vendors using litigation to protect their technology.

He states "[w]e need to clarify the distinction between patentable methods and processes based on unique, ingenious and truly outside-the-box advances and obvious advances that rely on existing thought." While this statement shows a disregard for the safeguards in the patenting process (such as the nonobviousness requirement), he does have an interesting point.

The purpose of granting patents is ultimately to provide a benefit to society. By giving the owner of an invention a monopoly for a limited time, we encourage development. However, the cost of development varies immensely. Drug companies expend massive capital searching for the next miracle cure. Without the promise of exclusivity in their product, they would never spend the money. For them, without patent protection, there would be no innovative effort. Other inventions require little or no investment to obtain. The pet rock was certainly a low-cost invention. There is a great argument that the cure for cancer benefits society much more than the pet rock. However, with a few exceptions, the patent term for both types of invention is 20 years from the filing date. See Are Patents Really Limited to 20 Years - A Closer Look at Pharmaceuticals.

Maybe Mr. Tabb is right. Maybe the length of patent coverage should vary depending on the cost of developing the invention and/or the benefit to society. Plant and design patents currently provide shorter protection than utility patents. Why not add more strata?

Posted by Melody Wirz at 09:47 AM.
Permalink: Method Patents - One Size Fit All Solution?
| Sphere: Related Content